Wednesday, January 16, 2008

So for months, the Paultards have been telling us that Ron Paul's results among republicans didn't matter, because he would steal so many votes from the democrats and the republicans. In Michigan, they got to put that idea to the test, since Michigan didn't have any delegates for the democrats, Obama and Edwards didn't participate, and people were allowed to cross party lines. How did Ron Paul fare? Not so well. Stick a fork in him, Jim.

On a different note, here's a question I've been having for a while: A lot of Paultards will defend Ron Paul's opposition to the Rosa Parks medal, because it's unconstitutional. But what, specifically make a congressional medal constitutional? I mean, would military medals be unconstitutional as well? After looking into the matter, it turns out that the first congressional medal was awarded in 1776 to George Washington, and they've been given out ever since. But for some reason, Ron Paul is apparently the first man in American history to find this unconstitutional. Thank you, Ron Paul, for displaying that your strict adherence to the constitution is more rigid than the founding fathers themselves.

It's also weird, when you consider that just last month, Ron Paul was on TV saying that the civil war was unnecessary, and that Lincoln should have compensated slave owners in exchange for freeing the slaves. Where in the constitution does it allow for that? Where in America has there been a precedent for that? So rewarding slave owners with hard cash because they enslaved people is okay, but rewarding Rosa Park with a gold medal for her role in the civil rights movement is not? WTF? I guess that in Ron Paul's world, Rosa Parks deserves to be treated worse than a slave owner. Great. And people wonder why Ron Paul is called a racist.

Update: Here's a copy of the bill. The part about using taxpayer money? Wrong. The medal was paid for by the sale of replicas.

3
comments:

Anonymous
said...

It gets worse when you consider the compensation thing (for human beings ) was actually rejected Paul's friends , Lew Rockwell and the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, promote Lincoln was wrong , supporters of Lincoln are part of a cult , that it was not a civil war but a fight by the south for independence, and secessionist principles are a good thing (states rights any one?). Never mind some really weird economic theories given credence by Rockwell that slavery would have faded away due to economic reasons ( how very noble) . That's just like segregation faded out without any need for something like a Civil Rights Act that Ron Paul dislikes.

It's just another example of Ron Paul's astounding ignorance of history. Abraham Lincoln actually did come up with a plan to buy the slaves and release them, and all of the border states rejected it outright. Had it actually worked, I have no doubt Ron Paul would today be saying that the goverment spending the money on freeing slaves was unconstitutional, and that his free market fairy would have eventually (magically) ended slavery.And he totally would have offered $100 out of his own pocket to free the slaves.